Written by Brett Baker   

We now move on to Reagan a California Republican. Unfortunately, I cannot and should not proceed with Reagan without including George H. W. Bush a Massachusetts born Texas Republican at the same time. Reagan was a great orator (and I would like to add, I met him, I spoke with him and I liked him), but he was really nothing more than a puppet for V.P. Bush, who was a former Director of the CIA, amongst his other accomplishments.

We’ll start with the 1980 campaign for the Presidency. According to a report by History Commons, “Robert Sensi, a young CIA agent with excellent contacts among prominent Arabs, the Republican National Committee opens what Sensi calls “a secret channel to Iran.” Sensi is not only alluding to the secret plans to sell arms to Iran…but to the “October Surprise” of the November 1980 US presidential elections.” Both of these events have Reagan’s Vice Presidential Candidates fingers all over them; George Herbert Walker Bush. So the CIA and the U.S. State Department, working with the Israelis tried to persuade Carter to sell arms to Iran for consideration (release of the hostages), but Carter wouldn’t sell Iran arms. Israel on the other hand, probably at the behest of the CIA and the U.S. State Department, did sell arms to Iran. The report further states, “Salem bin Laden, Osama’s eldest brother …is involved in secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries…and some have speculated that in these meetings, George H.W. Bush negotiated a delay to the release of the US hostages in Iran.” I’m obliged to note from the report, this “Points to a long-standing connection of highly improper behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families.” This connection becomes even more apparent when Bush 41’s son, “George W. Bush cleared the bin Laden’s to fly out of the United States” right after the September 11, 2001 attacks which were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. The report further states, “Sensi will note that CIA Director William Casey has been involved in the US’s secret dealings with Iran since the outset, as has Robert Carter, the deputy director of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.” And to top all of this off, Sensi’s organization Republicans Abroad gave them access to U.S. Embassies and the CIA (not that Bush 41 didn’t have access) which was capable of “conducting espionage and sabotage for the Republican Party.” Where have we heard this before? This is Watergate part II, or “Ratf_cking as the Republican operatives call it.”

It would appear as though Reagan was led by Bush 41 into a depraved world from the beginning of his campaign and as we will see, right through his two terms as President, which continues into the one term of President Bush 41. An hour after Reagan was sworn into office, the hostages were freed. If the French secret intelligence report was correct, then Reagan and Bush 41 were as dirty as could be. This is not implausible, as George H.W. Bush was the Director of the CIA at one point and he knew exactly how to get things done, especially dirty business. But there is the possibility the Iranians simply didn’t want to get blown completely off the map, which is what Carter should have done in the first place, but was too spineless to do. Even though the hostages in Iran were released, there were subsequent hostages in Lebanon. According to a PBS report the arms-for-hostages proposal was somewhat divisive. But, “Reagan, McFarlane and CIA Director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed.” The report goes on to state some interesting facts, “More than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released; only to be replaced by three more, in what Secretary of State George Schultz called “a hostage bazaar.”” Knowing this, it cannot be difficult to assume there in fact was a shady deal to secure the release of the Iranian hostages, just not until after Reagan took office. Backroom deals which prolong the imprisonment of Americans, is highly distasteful to say the least. The illegal sale of arms to an enemy which has attacked our sovereign nation and its citizens is criminal. The pay-offs to the terrorists in Lebanon was not only unfathomable but unconscionable and disgraceful.

As we have already seen, the U.S. was supplying arms to Iran, but according to many different reports, this one from Wikipedia, “Starting in 1982…the United States made its backing with Iraq more pronounced…supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.” Now the United States was funding both sides during the Iran-Iraq War. Was this a highly honorable thing to do? I will agree it is quite a plan to clandestinely supply both sides of a war, especially when you have an antagonistic history with each side! But these actions only diminish the stature of the United States and sully the reputation of its people. The promotion of war between two nations as a result of a misguided government foreign policy agenda can only be described as subversive and malevolent.

We should at least mention the arming of rebel groups such as the Mujahedeen in the 1980’s. Regarding foreign policy blunders according to the blog, Ottomans and Zionists, “The most prominent one was the effort to arm the Afghani mujahideen in the 1980’s in a bid to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.” The report goes on to state, “Arming the mujahideen caused enormous blowback for the U.S., since the weapons supplied by the U.S. were ultimately turned on U.S. and NATO troops years later and the arms and training indirectly benefited al-Qaida and the Taliban down the road.” I can’t help but think this did more than just indirectly benefit al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was in some way a protégé of the CIA and the U.S. State Department. We also know bin Laden was the head of al Qaeda. Just as we know the Bush family and the bin Laden family have longstanding ties. So I would agree this was in the least a foreign policy blunder to put it mildly.

Let’s move to the Republican National Convention in 1988, we all remember George H.W. Bush’s presidential nomination acceptance speech. But let’s cite Time.com, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Of course, this didn’t last. The University of Virginia’s Miller Center states, “In June 1990, Bush issued a written statement to the press, reneging on his “no taxes” pledge made during the campaign.” Well, it’s not unusual for a politician to say one thing and then turn around and do another. Perhaps a pledge made to the American people didn’t mean much to Bush 41. But raising taxes when he pledged not to raise them is really nothing compared to his bailout of the Savings and Loans industry. “In February 1989, with many S&Ls failing, Bush proposed a plan to bailout the industry…that ended up costing the taxpayers more than $100 billion.” The Miller Center did state the reasoning for the failures of the S&Ls, “The federal and state governments had deregulated the industry in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s…the industry ventured into riskier investments that destabilized it.” Basically, the Bush administration and the Congress rewarded the S&L industry for malfeasance and incompetence. The ‘more than $100 billion’ it cost the taxpayers didn’t belong to the federal government or the S&L industry; it belonged to the people of the United States and was misappropriated. A bailout and a tax hike really aren’t any different; both come directly out of the pockets of the people who make this nation what it is. A report in the Enquirer Daily News states, “It will cost at least $306 billion over the next 33 years, according to a June 28 analysis by the General Accounting Office. Taxpayers will pay 51 percent, or $157 billion.” Eight years of Bush as the Vice President and a little over one year with him as the President cost the American people a great deal of wealth and increased the deficit even higher than in the Reagan years.

According to Wikipedia, during the Bush administration in the 1990’s, they “Paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.” Other information about Halliburton an its subsidiaries include, “In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya…After having pled guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another 2.61 million in penalties.” But there’s more, “During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg-Brown Root (KBR) supported peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary…In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H.W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.” You will notice that some of the same company names re-appear from where this paper started with Lyndon Johnson. I find this to be very incestuous. I also believe this is another egregious example of a political leader, aka a government official, lining the pockets of their confederates. It seems very odd that politicians should be believed when their seemingly subversive cronyism is so wide out in the open. How do we know, Bush didn’t invade Kuwait to support companies with which he is aligned? Or possibly further a foreign policy agenda which lines the pockets of companies with which they are affiliated? By the way, Bush’s company Zapata was funded by the Brown brothers of Brown & Root. Are any of you starting to see the connection from one president to the next here?

So what do we have? Both Reagan and Bush 41 were involved in illegal arms sales. They both used the CIA to further a presidential bid. Both men had an affiliation with the bin Laden family and a secret deal to prolong the imprisonment of U.S. citizens held in Tehran. And then there was training of the Mujahedeen with bin Laden as their golden boy. There were botched arms sales or pay-offs to al Fatah terrorists for the release of hostages which didn’t work. There was the clandestine and disgusting arming of two nations (Iran and Iraq) to fight in a war against each other. There was espionage and sabotage without Congressional approval. And there was either lying or just simply going back on campaign promises. There were the unbelievable and ineffectual bailouts of S&Ls (who acted and operated as banks), plus a massive increase in the deficit. And there was the awarding of contracts to companies with which at least Bush 41 was affiliated as well as his father and that dated back to Suite 8F, which was actually before Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. And I didn’t even mention the U.S. Marines who were killed in Lebanon due to their lack of leadership skills. I should almost feel like laughing at this point, but this is just too sad for anything of that nature. Ronald Reagan conclusion: Reagan was a deceptive individual whose actions were corrupt. -- George H.W. Bush conclusion: Bush was a deceptively malevolent and corrupt politician whose actions were criminal.


Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Ronald Reagan


Now to Clinton a Democrat from Arkansas may be best known for his licentious sex acts with Monica Lewinsky, which is where I will start seeing as how I am already laughing. This information can be found at CNN Politics. In January of 1998, President Clinton denied having a sexual relationship (or any other type of affair or relationship for that matter) with Lewinsky, and in August of that same year, President Clinton did admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. On December 12 of 1998 the House impeached Clinton for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. On February 12 of 1999 the Senate acquitted Clinton. Another timeline of the Clinton impeachment can be found at the Brooklyn College website. I must note: I felt compelled to enter this because Clinton was impeached, but I personally found this entire incident to be uncalled for and quite an embarrassment to the nation. However, President Clinton should have just told everyone to mind their own business from the beginning, rather than lying about the affair; lying under oath and lying to the American people. Both Clinton and Lewinsky were of age and free to do as they pleased. If anything, this was a matter for Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, not the entire world. Unfortunately, Clinton proved himself to be just a liar.

Now is a good time to talk about the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas in 1993. According to the Free Dictionary by Farlex, “Approximately 80 Branch Davidians died, including their leader, 34-year old David Koresh. In all, 57 Davidians died in the fire, while 23 died from gunshot wounds. Of these dead, 17 were children, some of whom died from gunshot wounds and some in the fire. Eighteen children and 22 adults left the compound unharmed during the seven-week standoff.” A report from PBS stated, “On April 18, in a conversation with Reno, the President endorsed the gas plan. Although Clinton distanced himself from the matter after April 19…FRONTLINE has learned that Clinton apparently followed developments at Waco closely through some of his closest White House aides.” What we have is a President of the United States ordering a raid on a compound in the United States where 40 adults and 17 children were killed, and then the President had the audacity to try and distance himself the very next day. PBS FRONTLINE, which is not a partisan news organization, clearly stated they learned Clinton was closely kept abreast of the situation by his closest White House aides. Canada Free Press reports former advisor Dick Morris stated, “Bill Clinton orchestrated that takeover.” And then further reported, “Clinton in fact was so ashamed about what he did in Waco that he was not going to appoint Janet Reno to a second four year term.” Morris then gave information from a meeting with Reno before the inauguration day. Reno stated, “If you don’t appoint me I’m going to tell the truth about Waco.” Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris states on his web-site, “It was not anti-government rhetoric that inspired McVeigh…it was the action of the federal government during the Waco raid that incited him to violence…the attack on the Federal Office Building…on the anniversary of the Waco raid underscores the connection.” The only thing I didn’t find in the articles I read was the description of the entire incident described as a pathetic example of Clinton’s leadership. Of course there were the typical descriptions of Clinton as blameless and a mere by-stander plus the unfairness of the press. This is the second example I have given of why ‘Slick Willie’ got his nickname, but it’s a shame 80 American people, 17 which were children, had to be killed for no reason.

Clinton’s lies didn’t stop with Waco, according to Accuracy in Media, “President Clinton in his Chris Wallace interview…his claim that he was involved in “trying to stop genocide in Kosovo…” The report further states, “Clinton’s bombing…killed more people than died in this “genocide.” And his policy benefited Osama bin Laden and the global jihad.” And there is more, “The main beneficiary…a Muslim terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to bin Laden, who had declared war on America in 1996, bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998, and would later, of course, orchestrate 9/11.” Believe it or not, this actually gets even more interesting. Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer stated, “The Clinton Administration “had eight to ten chances” to kill bin Laden and “they refused to try…Clinton had a pro-Muslim foreign policy that actually benefited bin Laden and facilitated 9/11.” Now that’s what I call pathetic. And we haven’t even really touched on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center or the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa, which were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. While it is true the Mujahedeen was originally trained during the Reagan/Bush administration to fight the Soviets, it would seem blatantly obvious the Clinton administration was also quite fond of Osama bin Laden. Why else would Clinton support the KLA to kill Serb Christians, or refuse to kill bin Laden when he had 8 to 10 chances? Once again, I find myself writing the word pathetic with regard to Bill Clinton.

Mogadishu Somalia in 1993 was another one of Clinton’s low moments. “An American soldier’s bound corpse being dragged through the streets…and a videotape of a captured US pilot appeared to mark the turning point yesterday for the U.S. intervention in Somalia.” The Guardian went on to report, “The gruesome parade was a jolting reminder…of the public mangling of US soldiers’ bodies in Iran…it also recalled the…bomb which killed 241 Marines in Beirut.” The Guardian further reported, “President Bill Clinton said…any mistreatment of the captured Americans would be viewed ‘very gravely.’” How comforting Clinton can be issuing such a pathetic statement like that after the Soldier’s corpses had already been dragged through the streets by cheering crowds and videotaped. Of course, true to Slick Willie’s nature he later “Has attempted to keep the worsening Somali nightmare at arm’s length.” This is another sad example of Clinton’s so-called leadership of distancing himself and doing nothing. But this is not a surprise considering Clinton was nothing more than a draft dodging war protester who really hated honorable men.

Two U.S. embassies were attacked in Africa, Mr. Ben Snowdon and Mr. David Johnson reported, “In 1998, the Clinton Administration demonstrated an atypical aggressive response towards terrorism after the assault on…U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured.” Both of these attacks were attacks on sovereign U.S. soil and both occurred during the Clinton Administration. Clinton’s response was, “The U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Both targets were believed to have been financed by…Osama bin Laden.” According to a report in the National Security Archive, declassified documents, “Suggest the strikes not only failed to hurt Osama bin Laden but ultimately may have brought al-Qaeda and the Taliban closer politically and ideologically.” I can’t understand why such a sad little response was necessary. If military action was necessary, which I could have lived with, why not real targets? A so-called training facility and a drug factory (which was probably a milk factory) hardly seem like anything more than a waste of cruise missiles. But this is in keeping with Clinton’s façade. Slick Willie wasn’t trying to send a real message to the terrorists, he was attempting to make American’s believe he wasn’t limp wristed. A 400 page Sandia National Laboratories report stated, “In retrospect, it seems as if threat assessment personnel in Washington did not take the warning signs as seriously as did the embassy personnel in Nairobi.” Once again we see how the Clinton Administration fails to take threats to the security of the United States seriously. In fact, Clinton did more actual physical damage in Waco Texas than he did in Afghanistan or Sudan.

Let’s not forget about Clinton and the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. President Clinton stated, “We will pursue this. Those who did this must not go unpunished.” According to Crime Library, FBI Director Freeh stated, “Freeh expressed his frustrations and blamed President Clinton and his national security advisor Sandy Berger for having “no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers.” FBI Director Freeh stated later in the article, “The Clinton administration feared that “Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers,” which would imperil their diplomatic initiatives… President Clinton “deserted” the 19 victims and their families.” Here is another example of Clinton’s policy of doing nothing but paying lip service to America. Of course I haven’t mentioned Osama bin Laden yet. In a 1997 interview with a London based Arabic-language newspaper, bin Laden stated, “We had thought that the Riyadh and Al Khobar blasts were a sufficient signal to sensible U.S. decision makers…but they did not understand the signal.” This is typical of the Clinton mentality. How many times did Osama bin Laden’s name need to come up with regard to Americans being killed? But each and every time, Clinton did basically nothing.

I cannot finish with Clinton without mentioning the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. And of course, Osama bin Laden was behind the bombing. Larry Johnson a former CIA agent as well as having worked for the State Department stated, “Clinton’s weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.” The report goes on to state, “On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City…Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attack.” Clinton’s reaction and statement to the American people was, “I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this.” Overreacting? How can anyone believe a president who would say such a thing is anything other than a traitor and a coward? Bill Clinton really does have a long history with Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden was always the one who was killing Americans and Slick Willie was always the one who was making excuses as to why he couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything. The exception, of course was when Clinton was ordering the deaths of American citizens. Remember Waco?

“Interestingly, Al-Jazeera celebrated the fifth anniversary of 9/11 by airing several al-Qaeda videos, one of which showed two of the 9/11 hijackers saying their actions were designed to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Clinton policy more than that.” Bill Clinton, aka Slick Willie, can only be summed up as a prevaricating fool who was impeached because he was a liar and an individual who obstructed justice. He was a murderer who ordered the deaths at Waco of approximately 80 Americans including 17 children and the inspiration of Timothy McVeigh. He was a friend of islamo-fascist terrorists who included al Fatah, Osama bin Laden and the KLA; the killers of Serb Christians. Clinton was the spineless excuse-maker for all of his failed foreign policy blunders which included Mogadishu, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iran and I didn’t even go into his shameful Haiti legacy, and of course, his complete and utter failure with regard to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City and the obvious connection through all of his blunders which eventually led up to the complete destruction of the twin towers on 9/11. Conclusion: Clinton was a deceptive, spineless, pathetic example of a president whose actions were not only criminal, but corrupt as well. He was a disgrace to the nation.

For the conclusion, you must go to my blog.
Brett L. Baker
http://mytreatises.blogspot.com